Arguments in favour of immigration are generally based on economic terms. The social impact of immigration, on the other hand, is often seen as a negative to a country. Most of the time, those who favour open borders overlook the social impact and merely highlight the theoretical economic benefits that may not be even relevant to the country’s economic and business environment. This article argues whether there is a real need to open Sri Lankan borders and whether the ‘open border’ concept is suitable for a country like Sri Lanka.
Labour at a cheaper rate
During the harvesting season, Indian farm labourers arrive in Sri Lanka with tourist visas and offer their services to local farmers. As much as local farmers are welcoming them for their lower wage demands, this highlights embarrassing loopholes in our immigration laws and monitoring mechanisms. The sad truth is that we would never know how many of them are actually going back. Not just Indians, there are many other immigrants overstaying their visa on Sri Lankan ground, engaging in odd jobs like farming and trading activities.
All these migrants are illegally engaging in economic activities in Sri Lanka, even with present regulations. One of the good examples is Sri Lanka’s gold trade, where many Indians are employed in jewellery manufacturing, ousting locals. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka’s immigration law does not provide the infrastructure to track down and take action against the individuals who are overstaying in Sri Lanka. Also, unlike in Singapore, it is difficult to identify these individuals from Sri Lankans.
Foreign labour is already possible
Even now, there are many foreign nationals employed in various sectors, and present regulation permits organizations to hire foreign labour as and when required. It is true that there is a certain level of screening involved, but it helps to ensure the quality of the labour we are getting to a certain extent.
Developed nations
For the European Union to open borders to their members took a very long time with many rounds of negotiation. Even with advance surveillance and monitoring, they are also facing many social problems due to opening borders. Even though Singapore is praised for its open border, it should be noted that they have structured immigration systems in place. There are clearly-set criteria for skilled and unskilled labour entering Singapore, with well-established screening and monitoring mechanisms.
With all systems in place, it is estimated that the US has 12-18 million illegal immigrants in the country. There are millions of Americans who have been forced to live on welfare because employers have lowered wages for construction, farming and other industries because illegal immigrants will always fill up the positions. There is no need to explain the pitfall that Sri Lanka would fall into if we open our borders without having the proper regulatory framework and infrastructure. We do not even have social welfare systems to look after the Sri Lankan who is going to be unemployed in such a scenario.
Immigrant factor in shaping the country’s politics
Ironically, securing borders has become a topic in ongoing presidential campaigns for 2016 in the US now, where many Republicans are favouring the idea. After a long period of free movement of people, American citizens are realizing what they have overlooked in the run for economic prosperity. Former US Senator Rick Santorum, the winner of the 2012 Iowa caucus, has proposed to get rid of the visa lottery system, which he claims to be the way a lot of radicals have come into the country. At present, the world and the US is debating on Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s statements on immigrants. Whether right or wrong, these views expose the other side of open borders. It is clearly evident that immigrants are now shaping the political environment of those countries and natives have become powerless with their own laws on ‘hate speech’ and ‘human rights’.
The bottom line is that that developed countries with open borders are now debating on how to secure their borders with the consequences they have faced. Why are we trying to open our borders to ‘re-invent the wheel’ by inviting problems we never had?
Consequences of Sri Lanka opening borders
Free movement of people is different from the free movement of goods. These immigrants will not only bring their skills and strengths, they will also bring their weaknesses. Would Sri Lanka as a country be able to manage them with our present systems?
Opening borders will allow free movement of people from neighboring countries that have a very high level of unemployment. In addition, given their economic condition, these foreign nationals will work at a much lower wage rate like Indian farm labourers. But in this case, jobs sought by these foreign nationals would go beyond farming. Naturally, local companies will hire cheap foreign labour, creating a vicious unemployment cycle for local youth. As a result, opening borders in Sri Lanka will open grounds for serious repercussions if we do it blindly with the aim of reducing short-term labour shortages. In the longer term, this would not only be a social problem, but also a political problem.
Short-term options
There are many other solutions for a country facing labour shortage rather than blindly opening its borders to greater problems. Sri Lanka should take policy measures to face shortages with educational reform and youth training. If there is a real shortage, Sri Lanka can introduce a quota system for the relevant professions in need, to bring down foreign labour for a short period, while letting Sri Lankan youth qualify. This mechanism can be implemented for unskilled labour as well. At present, the rubber industry is training tappers for present and future requirements.
As a short-term solution, Sri Lanka can streamline the migration of labour from the sectors in which labour shortages have been identified.
Long-term vision
Relevant industries also have to play a role in this exercise by anticipating the future needs of their respective industries, so that there is a timeframe for relevant policy measures to be implemented and harvested. However, as stressed above, long-term policy development on education and training should have to be the focal point by considering local and global labour requirements.
Clearly, the need to protect the country from a predictable disaster by opening borders without revisiting and strengthening the regulatory framework could be distinguished from a narrow agenda. Also, pushing a country to open its borders, when the country and its people are not ready, creates a questionable doubt and it is not fair for the present and future generations.
Editor’s response
Economic and cultural insecurities are pronounced in Sri Lanka – which is only just emerging from a long conflict, during which racial tension ran high and economic opportunities were remote. Nationalists and mercantilists frequently exploit these insecurities and prejudices of ordinary people. Apprehensions about people who look different and speak an unfamiliar language are easily exploited, when those people are not Sri Lankan citizens.
Anupama Wimalarathna’s arguments, replete with knee-jerk populism, are calculated appeals to the narrow interests of special interest groups and insecurities of ordinary people. Before we go much further, it’s important to emphasise that Echelon stands for pretty much everything populists despise: free markets, globalisation, free trade and open borders. We don’t expect populists or chauvinists to be convinced. Our aim is to stimulate an evidence-based debate about the choices facing Sri Lanka, which will lead to informed decisionmaking.
Wimalarathna – whose feedback we appreciate and views we respect – first highlights the patchy immigration law enforcement that allows Indian farm workers and goldsmiths find employment without required paperwork. Flouting a law – even when there is no harm done – isn’t something we condone.
[pullquote]Skilled, hardworking and motivated foreign workers raise the competitiveness of the entire country and improve productivity all round[/pullquote]
However, foreign farm workers and goldsmiths’ lower manufacturing costs make these products more affordable. There is no evidence these workers are taking jobs from Sri Lankans, just like evidence is nonexistent of illegal immigrants employed as farmhands denying jobs to US citizens. There are an estimated 16 million undocumented workers in the US, and besides lunatics in the fringes, their contribution as workers is widely recognized.
Wimalarathna is confused if somehow our argument for openness to foreign workers and migration is equated to wholesale illegal workers arriving here. We advocate an immigration policy similar to Singapore’s, where someone securing a job is allowed to live there. There is a process for the paperwork without hindering the government and private sector’s ability to hire the best people from anywhere in the world.
What’s important is that the organisation hiring the foreigner is the one allowing that person to work here, not some bureaucrat. Hiring qualified professionals from overseas is usually more costly and any company doing so would have carefully weighed the options.
Untrained foreigners work for lower pay. What’s wrong with that? They do jobs here that Sri Lankans no longer want to do and don’t deny work to anybody who wants it here. In a piece ‘Busting open-borders myths’ (page 35) in this issue, we explain the overwhelming logic and cite plenty of facts.
Skilled, hardworking and motivated foreign workers raise the competitiveness of the entire country and improve productivity all-round. While skills gaps are widespread in Sri Lanka, just as they are in many parts of the world, opening borders is not about temporary fixes for a shortage but a perpetual process.
Nationalists and populists have been unusually successful at fear mongering in parts of Europe. The US Republican party’s search for a presidential candidate – opinions emerging from which Wimalarathna freely cites – has degenerated into a nationalist freak show.
Despite all this, more than one million people will legally migrate to the US this year, as they do every year. Millions more will go to Europe. Germany by itself will accept a million refugees this year, driven by more than a moral obligation. Their leaders understand the crucial contribution of migrants, who then become citizens.
Assuming it isn’t a willful misrepresentation, it’s a remarkably inept grasp of facts around European attitudes to immigrants from the continent and outside it. The EU’s open borders to members is one of the most liberal. However, even before this policy was implemented, there was plenty of migration in the continent.
Wimalarathna mentions Donald Trump’s highlighting of immigration challenges in the GOP presidential nomination race. Trump – whose mother is Scottish and paternal grandparents are German immigrants to the US – is standard-bearer for the populist lot. That’s great company, we are sure.